User talk:Anomalous+0

I'm used to working on a custom implementation of MediaWiki, so my Wikipedia skills are out of practice. Much thanks for cleaning up my contributions to the Cindy_Hyde-Smith article to meet WP standards! 2601:3CA:204:F860:4DEB:52C8:7CB0:F598 (talk) 23:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anomalous+0. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anomalous+0 - I see you added Category:Monuments and memorials in the United States to the John F. Kennedy memorial category. About a quarter of the monuments listed are outside the US - is it an appropriate parent? Grutness...wha? 00:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Grutness: Huh, good question. I had indeed spotted half a dozen that were outside the US, and I didn't think that was a problem. After reading your note, I just had another look and found some more that I had missed. By my count, 12 out of 59 (about a fifth) are outside the US. If it was much more I suppose I'd need to reconsider -- but I'm inclined to leave it, as much as anything because it was rather shocking not to find a JFK category listed among the many sub-cats of Category:Monuments and memorials in the United States, if you see what I mean. I guess we could consider creating a US sub-cat of Category:Memorials to John F. Kennedy, but that seems kind of excessive, don't you think? (PS - sorry for the delay in replying) Anomalous+0 (talk) 09:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If a memorial is located outside the US then it does not belong into a US category. Categorisation has to be correct. Schwede66 15:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Schwede66 is right. The best solution might be a Category:Monuments and memorials to John F. Kennedy in the United States subcat it is a bit excessive, perhaps, but there are so many memorials to him, and there are probably quite a few more which still don't have articles yet - it my well be justifiable in this case. Grutness...wha? 00:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell, let's just go for it and set up that sub-cat. Seriously, I was just having a hard time wrapping my head around it....(LOL) Anomalous+0 (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done :) Grutness...wha? 10:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Category:Nazi Germany by year, please make sure that the category page actually exists. In some cases, it may be appropriate to create a new category in accordance with Wikipedia's categorization guidelines, but it is usually better to use the most specific available existing category. It is never appropriate to leave a page categorised in a non-existent category, i.e. one whose link displays in red. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: Whoops. I had every intention of creating the category, but encountered a number of computer-related problems & got completely sidetracked -- and never did create it. (Didn't see your note 'til just now - sorry.) Anomalous+0 (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, A+O.

In any case I am unclear why we would want a Category:History of Nazi Germany. That Nazi era in Germany ended 74 years ago, so AFAICS the whole of Category:Nazi Germany would belong in a Category:History of Nazi Germany, and that would be a pointless circle. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit, you said the reason for the move is to achieve symmetry with Group action (sociology). But a result of your page move was that Group action became a redirect page whose target was Group action (mathematics). That is a lack of symmetry. Only if Group action were a disambiguation page with links to both Group action (mathematics) and Group action (sociology) would there be symmetry. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for kindly pointing that out. You're quite right about the "lack of symmetry" (LOL). I've gone ahead and remedied the oversight. Anomalous+0 (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After closure of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_26#Category:Sexuality_books as no consensus, please provide new thoughts on how to proceed. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll come back to this in the near future. Anomalous+0 (talk) 23:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"To ignore that is to compound the crime": that is exactly how I feel about it. Thanks for your help. I hope that editor doesn't just dismiss this as some match that they lost, but rather that they think on it a little bit. Drmies (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anisotropy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Composite (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I really like the song We Will All Go Together When We Go and think there should be an article about the song. However, I can't see needing more than a very small quote from it. I had to delete the lyrics; it was too much of the song and really should not have been entered into the encyclopedia. Jacqke (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, Jacqke. Yup, it definitely needs an overhaul. I'll see what I can do. Best, Anomalous+0 (talk) 08:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Calling our most basic policy of providing references "pure b.s. is not helpful. Please provide a more convincing defense of the article. Like, ... supplying references, maybe? Staszek Lem (talk) 01:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

You're invited to an RfC on the question of, "Within the section on the Iran-Contra affair, should we include the aspect of drug trafficking on the part of some Nicaraguan Contras?"

Talk:Ronald_Reagan#rfc_85A761C

Thanks,

FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am a transvestite. I wear women's clothing. I am not transgender. I'm not changing anything. CallMeHonesty (talk) 07:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Um, okay... that's nice. But please help me out -- I'm not entirely sure why you left this note. Were you thinking I might be in need of a tutorial? Anomalous+0 (talk) 08:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @CallMeHonesty just circling back on this Mihir.pethe1 (talk) 07:16, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Ivan Golunov at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's been 3 weeks since I posted my concerns. Do you want to respond at the template, or should we close this nomination as unsuccessful? Yoninah (talk) 16:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We still have problems with the references, among other things. If you do not post to your nomination soon, it may well be closed around the end of this month. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see new note on your DYK nomination. Yoninah (talk) 23:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On 26 September 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ivan Golunov, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that just prior to his arrest in 2019, investigative journalist Ivan Golunov was examining the links between Moscow funeral businesses and the Federal Security Service? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ivan Golunov. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

valereee (talk) 00:03, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a note to Talk:Flint, Flintshire. Work is in progress! -- Picapica (talk) 06:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Categories by branch, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Works about the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:28, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi:

Why this change (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Weather&diff=928469530&oldid=908945436)? Weather is a series of phenomena studied by Meteorology, not the other way around. I had to reverse your illogical edition.

Pierre cb (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American journalists of Vietnamese descent has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. User:Namiba 15:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Earlier this year you commented on the origin of the name Flint (Flintshire). I'm a new editor I've put some detailed information on the matter in the talk page, (I'm a little frustrated by someone who appears to me to be acting a little unreasonably) i believe the sources I've referenced are indeed secondary/tertiary sources discussing the subject matter directly ( even the reference to the Calendar of the Chancelory Roll I'm calling on the commentary of the compiler as published in 1914) and there's 5 of them! In any case my intention is not to publish those points but discredit the original source and thus remove it from the page. Even if it is prevalent it surely can't be right it's included unchallenged if it can be obviously disproven? Surely wikipedia isn't a place for known misinformation? I feel I don't have the resources or experience to compete for this, so perhaps I may ask for you to share your opinion on the matter especially as you have questioned it's inclusion so recently?

Kind Regards

Gareth Gar P Young (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Flashback (psychology), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fright.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my proposal to speedily rename subcategories of Category:Enforced disappearances by country e.g. Category:Forced disappearances in Argentina to Category:Enforced disappearances in Argentina to align with the parent category per C2C. Hugo999 (talk) 04:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Battle at Apache Pass, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Native Americans.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:News websites by topic indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the category Category:American women legal scholars has been created, and many women (such as Lina Khan) moved into it, and out of Category:American legal scholars. However, no equivalent Category:American male legal scholars has been created. This is an issue of markedness, and one that has come up on Wikipedia before - see WP:WAW#Male is not the default. This caused quite the brouhaha in 2013. Either we should have 2+ categories for legal scholars, divided by gender, or we should have one category, undivided. Separating out women is unhelpful. Anomalous+0, I'm pinging you as the category creator, and Smasongarrison, since you took the action I noticed - what are your thoughts? —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:CATGENDER, which says only that a gender-specific category "could be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic", but does not mandate it (emphasis mine). Gender does not have a specific relation to the topic of legal scholars (as opposed to athletic competition, the example given at WP:CATGENDER). It also says that "In almost all cases, a GREDS-based category should be non-diffusing. This means that membership of an article in the category will not require its removal from a parent category unrelated to GREDS." To me, this seems like a pretty clear-cut case. All the members of Category:American women legal scholars should be placed back in Category:American legal scholars, if it is kept at all. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:48, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dante's View, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Black Mountains.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, could you explain why Category:Black people in art is not apt as a parent cat? Is the description of "Works about [group]" not essentially synonymous with "[group] in art", hence all of the pages for one category being necessary to include in the other? Orchastrattor (talk) 19:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief.<sigh> Okay, as you are fully aware - since you put them there yourself - Category:Black people in art is already serving as the parent cat for 2 of the SUB-cats of Category:Works about African-Americans that deal with works of art. Hence making it a parent of that Category would be entirely redundant.

Furthermore - and more importantly - the other contents of Category:Works about African-Americans are NOT "works of art" at all - rather, they are simply other kinds of works about African-Americans. The larger point being that categories for works of art are always treated as sub-cats of larger categories for "Works" in general - NEVER the other way around.

I sure hope that helps. And I strongly urge you to take the time to familiarize yourself with the basic tenets of proper categorization before you engage in further avoidable blunders. Anomalous+0 (talk) 21:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a specific policy or consensus in mind as precedent here? The only sticking points here seem to be the documentary works which could easily be defined as a type of art and it would be very labyrinthine and unintuitive to have this split between "art" and "works" running down several layers of sub-groups, the tone of your response is entirely uncalled for. Orchastrattor (talk) 13:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief all over again. <sigh> I've already laid it all out for you as clearly as possible. Unfortunately, you've chosen to ignore what I told you - rather than, for instance, exploring the relevant Category trees, which is always a very salutary thing to do - and might have helped you to understand & accept the validity of my explanation. I'm afraid I just can't waste any more time & effort on this, so if you are unable to digest what I've already explained, please take any further questions about this issue to Wikipedia_talk:Categorization. I'm sure the good folks who field questions there will give you an explanation that is entirely in accord with what I've already told you. Anomalous+0 (talk) 22:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:African-Americans in art, Category:Works about black people etc. are all non-existent and you have not provided any precedent for such a distinction to be necessary, it remains a perfectly reasonable assumption for an "art" category to automatically include any sorts of "works", especially after I identified the possible grey areas you could use against my position only for you to refuse to elaborate on them. You can't contest someone else's contributions and then get exasperated with them when they AGF and ask you to defend your position.Orchastrattor (talk) 00:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In fact Black people in art already includes numerous documentary works under Category:Cultural depictions of Black people, do you oppose their inclusion as well or not? Orchastrattor (talk) 00:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I couldn't help but notice that you apparently didn't know how to link to the categories in question without having this talk page becoming listed in those categories, rather than showing up in the text you posted. (At least you avoided that, at any rate.) All it takes is a simple, properly placed colon ":" and, voila. Anomalous+0 (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British scholars has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 11:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Native American people from the San Francisco Bay Area has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 05:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've stumbled onto User:SDZeroBot/Category cycles/17 today, and fixed one of the category cycles there. At the time, I haven't realized that I did it before, because I wasn't aware about the reverts (one, two).

My reasoning in 2024 ("animals" are a subject of study in Zoology) hasn't changed since 2020 (end goal: having categorization be "science" contains its "subject"). This is consistent with other similar science–subject pairs of categories:

• Biology → Organisms
• Botany → Plants
• Mycology → Fungi
• Hydrology → Water
• Linguistics → Languages

The science category should encompass the subject category. For example, Category:Linguistics is about languages (which are the main subject of study of linguistics), linguists, and methodology of linguistics. But Category:Languages is only about linguistics in the sense that the word linguistics is part of the English language.

This approach helps keeping topic categories clear, and helps to avoid unnecessary category cycles. Does it make sense? —⁠andrybak (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Flint (rock) has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can I ask why you've made various changes to categories such as https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Women_scientists&diff=prev&oldid=1214487624 ? How does putting it under a semi-colon improve things compared to be being under "W"? Thanks. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wagons West, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Parrish.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 15 § X by ethnic or national origin on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of the Jews in the American West, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Julius Kahn.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Plasma (physics) indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:59, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the heads up on this, Liz. Much appreciated. Very sad that User:Evgeny didn't have the decency to leave me a message informing me of his handiwork in dismantling the work I put into setting up the new Category - which is NOT a "duplicate" as he claimed. Anomalous+0 (talk) 09:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't forget to add non-diffusing tags to categories you create. Mason (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the reminder. Anomalous+0 (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Please stop introducing havoc in the plasma-related category tree. If you believe it can be improved, start by properly *discussing* your vision first. FYI, "Plasma physics" just redirects to a section in "Plasma (physics)". Anything that is related to plasma (in the physics meaning, not the blood plasma etc) deals with plasma physics, and vise versa. Even if at some point the "plasma physics" becomes a separate article, there is absolutely no reason to have two parallel category trees. Let's not confuse the readers. Evgeny (talk) 07:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Humboldt University of Berlin

added a link pointing to Epigraph

The Empty Library

added a link pointing to Epigraph

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hah. It never occurred to me that Epigraph might be a DAB page. Crazy. :) Anomalous+0 (talk) 23:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please change the name of the new category 'Non-fiction books about the African-American civil rights movement' to 'Non-fiction books about the 1954-1968 Civil Rights Movement' per accuracy and correct name of the movement. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:CATNAME, how about Category:Non-fiction books about the 1954-1968 civil rights movement, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've put a nomination up at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 20. Categories on Wikipedia align with their topic article, which in this case is 'civil rights movement' (which was trickily changed from the proper uppercased name Civil Rights Movement awhile back by lumping it in with other pages named 'civil rights movement'). Thanks for this new category, it fills a neglected niche. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kate Wolf, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Berkeley High School.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. No kidding. Taking care of it! Anomalous+0 (talk) 23:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American writers about The Holocaust has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Bearcat (talk) 14:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Anomalous+0,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Mason7512, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I have tagged an article that you started, Fasting in religion, for deletion, because there's already a page about that topic at Religious fasting. Please don't be discouraged; we appreciate your effort in creating new articles. To avoid this in the future, consider using the search function to find pages that already cover what you want to write about.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Mason7512}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Mason7512 (talk) 21:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. That's supposed to be a Redirect - i.e. they're the same article, which I renamed. Not sure what happened there - I converted it to a a Redirect myself. Regards, Anomalous+0 (talk) 05:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just checked that page, and it seems that another editor has already taken care of things. :) Anomalous+0 (talk) 05:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ghetto (play), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jewish resistance.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My requested RM for Springfield, Ohio, cat-eating hoax is clearly moving in the direction of "no consensus". If it fails, I'm thinking of waiting a week or two and submitting a new RM with either your suggestion (with a geocomma) or Springfield, Ohio, pet-eating migrant rumors; wording swap addresses the possible misplaced modifier. I'm leaning towards the latter. Carguychris (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note, Carguychris. And thank you for taking on the thankless job of trying to get the article renamed! Hopefully in a couple of weeks, with continued scrutiny and investigative reporting, we will have more clarity about what has transpired - especially given the bomb threats and school closures that were reported today. Regards, Anomalous+0 (talk) 08:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your recent edits to because many of the categories don't apply to all the contents of the category. Please review WP:OVERCAT and WP:EPONCAT. Mason (talk) 03:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish American legal scholars has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 03:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Category:Israeli legal scholars, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Please do not conflate nationality with religion. Mason (talk) 15:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ivan Illich, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Holt.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:African-American federal judges has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Snickers2686 (talk) 03:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 5 § Category:Eponymous categories on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:21, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ethnomusicology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trope.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Carrying capacity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tipping point.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Early childhood education, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Developmental stage.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw you added a bunch of categories to this bio, but gave some the sortkey *. I removed them before seeing that you seem quite comfortable with categories, so I figure I should ask why you put him under that sortkey header for so many topics? (The categories, for reference: [1]) — HTGS (talk) 05:28, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Black British psychologists and psychotherapists has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ^SMason_Garrison 13:25, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please make sure not to forget adding nondiffusing parent tags and sort keys. ^SMason_Garrison 13:27, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I saw that a category you created, Category:LGBTQ American activists has not been used more than a handful of pages. According to the guideline Wikipedia:Categorization, categories should be populated with multiple articles. Please help by adding other articles to the categories you create. You can take a look at the categorization FAQ. If you need further help, ask at the Teahouse. Thank you. please populate the categories you create ^SMason_Garrison 01:41, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. At least one of your edits on the page Category:American women sociologists, while it may have been in good faith, was difficult to distinguish from vandalism. To help other editors understand the reason for the changes, you can use an edit summary for your contributions. You can also take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Please stop changing the sort keys from + to ;. The plus is commonly used across the project to indicate non-diffusing. ^SMason_Garrison 01:04, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Native American studies scholars has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ^SMason_Garrison 01:11, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Palestinian Buddhists has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ^SMason_Garrison 01:26, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]